The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay a Bombay High Court order permitting the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to remove over 45,000 mangroves for the construction of the Versova-Bhayander road project. The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, emphasized the “significant and beneficial impact” the infrastructure project would have on decongesting North Mumbai’s traffic-choked western highway.
The decision comes as a setback to environmental activists who challenged the December 12, 2025, High Court ruling. While the apex court allowed the project to proceed, it mandated strict oversight, directing the BMC to submit annual reports to the High Court detailing compensatory afforestation efforts and mangrove restoration progress.
The Versova-Bhayander road, a critical extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road (North) project, is estimated to cost the BMC upwards of ₹20,000 crore. The project spans an alignment area of 103 hectares.
According to court submissions, the project’s “influence zone” encompasses approximately 60,000 mangroves. Of these, 45,000 will be impacted by the construction, with roughly 9,000 mangroves slated for permanent removal.
Representing the BMC, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the road is a vital necessity for the city. He submitted that the infrastructure would drastically reduce travel time and alleviate the chronic congestion currently seen on the Western Express Highway.
On the opposing side, Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for the NGO Vanashakti, raised concerns regarding the BMC’s transparency. Singh alleged that the corporation obtained the High Court’s permission by presenting “earlier afforestation” as new efforts. He cited satellite imagery from October 2025—two months prior to the High Court’s order—to support the claim that the BMC’s reported environmental mitigation was misleading.
The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, ultimately prioritized the public utility of the project. The court noted that the decongestion of the western highway provided a clear benefit to the general public that outweighed the arguments for a stay on the High Court’s order.
However, the requirement for annual reporting serves as a judicial safeguard to ensure that the BMC fulfills its promises regarding compensatory planting.
